Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Jacqui BanerjeeStephanie Carnachan May 2009
Forest Hill Pools Consultation
Spring 2009
2
Agenda
Background and objectives
Research method
Main findings
•Respondent characteristics
•Preferences
•Reasons for preference
•Anticipated usage
•Views on existing building being used for housing development
• What residents would expect from the new facility
3
Background and Objectives
In March 2006 Forest Hill Pools closed for health and safety reasons
In September 2008, Mayoral approval on further feasibility work being carried out to deliver a two-pool facility to residents of Forest Hill
In February 2009, the Mayor agreed there were two possible options
Inclusive research required to understand the support for each option
4
Options
» Option 1: To postpone the project until 2012. This might allow further funding to be found in future for a new leisure centre on the existing pools site. The earliest possible estimated completion date for this option would be 2015.
» Option 2: To proceed now and build a new leisure centre on Willow Way. Willow Way is an alternative site that is approximately 400 metres from the current site. The option would be partly funded by developing the land on the current pools site for housing. The estimated completion date for the new leisure centre would be late 2011.
» The cost of building a new leisure centre is similar for both sites. The second option is affordable now because the proceeds from housing development on the current pools site could help to pay for a new leisure centre on Willow Way.
5
Research Method
6
Research method - quantitative
Four main groups
Telephone research with a representative sample of residents in Forest Hill, Sydenham and Perry Vale aged 13 years+ using RDD and Lifestyle database telephone approach. Quota controls and corrective weighting by age, gender, tenure and ward. BME and disability watched
Self completion research via 20,000 paper questionnaires distributed to households in the three wards (and also made available in public places) and a supplementary online questionnaire posted on the Council website. Online questionnaire advertised within the Borough.
Local businesses, telephone interview speaking to owner, proprietor or director
Local schools, telephone interview speaking to head, deputy head or head of sports
7
Research method - quantitative
How many?
When?
1001 telephone interviews
2508 self completion (2054 postal and 454 online)
101 businesses
15 schools
Residential telephone interviews between 1 and 17 May 2009
Postal and online questionnaire available from 27 April and closed on 31 May 2009
Businesses and schools between 11 and 22 May 2009
8
Research method - qualitative
How many?
Who?
When?
Method?
Local residents covering differing groups: pre-family, parents of younger children, parents of older children, retired, disabled residents and Saxon Crown swimming club members
Members of Forest Hill Pools Stakeholders Group
7 focus groups with local residents (consisting largely of 6-8 respondents)
12 stakeholder interviews
Mainly face to face with the exception of telephone in one case
11 to 28 May 2009
9
Respondent characteristics
10
Quantitative respondent characteristics
Telephone respondents are representative of residents aged 13 years or more living in the three wards
By comparison, self completion respondents - chosen to make effort to take part, therefore
motivated to do so:
-more likely to take part in physical exercise / swimming activities
- more likely to have been former Forest Hill Pool users and aware closure
-online respondents - greater proportion of Forest Hill residents
Also slight biases in demographic profile of self completion respondents to population:Fewer under 24 year olds and males
Therefore when examining results, it is important to understand how these views are likely to be formed
11
Option Preference
12
How appropriate Option One is
28%
32%
28%
49%
24%
27%
29%
18%
18%
18%
20%
27%
25%
22%
24%
14%
36%
33%
19%
21%
22%
19%
21%
13%
6%
8%
Telephone
Self completion
Postal
Online
Businesses
Schools
Very appropriate Quite appropriate Not very appropriate Not at all appropriate Not stated
Base : All respondents 1001/2508 2054/454 101/15
57%
50%
46%
67%
44%
53%
Very/quite
S
13
How appropriate Option Two is
36%
32%
36%
19%
39%
33%
34%
18%
19%
14%
34%
53%
14%
15%
14%
21%
12%
16%
29%
25%
47%
16%
13%
5%
6%
Telephone
Self completion
Postal
Online
Businesses
Schools
Very appropriate Quite appropriate Not very appropriate Not at all appropriate Not stated
Base : All respondents 1001/2508 2054/454 101/15
70%
51%
55%
32%
72%
87%
Very/quite
S
S
S
14
Option preference
39%
44%
39%
66%
31%
20%
51%
43%
47%
27%
59%
53%
11%
13%
14%
8%
10%
27%
Telephone
Self completion
Postal
Online
Businesses
Schools
Option 1 Option 2 Undecided
Base : All respondents 1001/2508 2054/454 101/15
S
S
S
S
15
Reasons why appropriate – Option One
High
Medium
LowArea lacks facilities/needs a pool
Accessible location
Loca
tion
Building
Benefit to the community/
economy
A good location
Everyone knows where it is
Its always been there
Central location/ in town centre
Stronger amongst online respondents
Already built for purpose
Building should be preserved
Of historical value/ retain links with past
Will benefit local people
More people will use it
Will help regeneration
Ideal for schools
16
Reasons why appropriate – Option Two
High
Medium
Low
Area lacks facilities/needs a pool
Accessible location
Loca
tion
Timing
Benefit to the community/
economy
A good location
Stronger amongst online respondents
2015 too long to wait
The quicker option
Would like something modern
Will benefit local people
More people will use itOur children will
miss out – need something now
Ideal for schools
Building
17
Reasons why not appropriate
Timing: takes too long, need it now, continue before any other hindrances arise
Location: not a good site, not accessible
Building: listed status will always be a barrier, would like something new and modern
Financial: do not believe the financial arguments
Location: too far from where live, people might not be able to find it, unpleasant, scruffy, unsafe area
Building: Existing building already fit for purpose, building should be preserved, history should be retained
Financial: Forest Hill does not need a swimming pool
Option One Option Two
18
Likelihood of visiting
52%
64%
60%
80%
31%
40%
21%
17%
18%
13%
27%
20%
7%
5%
5%
3%
12%
7%
9%
4%
4%
3%
12%
7%
12%
5%
6%
1%
19%
27%
Telephone
Self completion
Postal
Online
Businesses
Schools
Very likely Fairly likely Not very likely Not at all likely Unsure
Base : All respondents 1001/2508 2054/454 101/15
39%
35%
37%
24%
27%
40%
21%
17%
18%
14%
24%
20%
11%
14%
13%
20%
18%
7%
15%
22%
19%
37%
16%
7%
13%
7%
8%
5%
16%
27%
Telephone
Self completion
Postal
Online
Businesses
Schools
Option One Option Two
60%
52%
55%
38%
50%
60%
Very/quite
73%
81%
78%
93%
57%
60%
Very/quite
S For all residential groups
19
Reasons for visiting or not visiting
» Accessibility: close to home
» A pool user: would go with family, like swimming, keep fit/healthy
» Expectations: that it will be modernised and good facilities
» Former user: used to go (Option one only)
» Curiosity: will give it a try, something new
» Personal reasons: too old, dislike swimming/ exercise, disabled/medical condition
» Location: not accessible, dislike the area
» Preference: prefer other leisure centres in the area
Reasons similar for each option
Likely Unlikely
20
Appropriateness of developing the land on the existing Forest Hill pools site for housing
23%
19%
21%
11%
31%
7%
29%
20%
21%
16%
30%
47%
19%
19%
18%
22%
21%
27%
28%
36%
33%
51%
19%
20%
Telephone
Self completion
Postal
Online
Businesses
Schools
Very appropriate Quite appropriate Not very appropriate Not at all appropriate
Base : All respondents 1001
53%
39%
42%
27%
60%
53%
Very/quite
21
Facilities would like to see as part of the new leisure centre development
Base : All respondents 1001
Swimming pool
Gym
Café
Sauna/steam room
Sports hall for team and court sports
Community room
Teaching pool
High
Medium
Low
22
Thank you
